Government has no money of its own, yet successive governments have spent taxpayers’ money on failed projects with impunity – and immunity!
When considering one of the recent less than helpful policy choices foisted on us by Labour, putting up National Insurance on employers’ contributions – which has in practice stopped many companies from taking on new employees despite Labour pinning everything on growth! – it got me thinking about how poor policy decision-making often is at the top. Presented with the key facts, almost anyone could have told Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves (and they did) that this NI hike on employers was a poor idea, yet the decision was made by top politicians earning six-figure salaries!
Let’s think about some of the other poor and costly policy decisions of recent years. It’s actually hard to know where to start!
Most Lib Dems would struggle to approve of any of the measures enacted by the Thatcher Government, but selling off council housing, a deeply ideological move, was perhaps one of their most reckless ideas. The lost pool of social housing was never replaced so, decades later, we have many less well-off families permanently locked out of affordable housing and, tragically, more homeless people than ever on our streets.
And what about the Iraq War? There never were any weapons of mass destruction and Tony Blair only really agreed to stand shoulder to shoulder with President Bush on the War because of the questionable ‘special relationship’. Think what this cost the UK in terms of lost lives and billions wasted on military combat. The 2016 Chilcot Enquiry concluded, “The consequences of the invasion and of the conflict within Iraq which followed are still being felt in Iraq and the wider Middle East, as well as in the UK”. Yet somehow only the Lib Dems could see in advance that this War was deeply wrong.
Other examples of poor management at the top include the HS2 debacle, which has now become a national embarrassment, already costing the taxpayer billions, but with not a single train in service to show for it yet (a project legislated for by government, delivered by HS2 Ltd, who are accountable to the Department of Transport). Then there’s the vile Post Office Horizon Scandal, partly enabled by years of poor public governance of the postal service, – and even the recent ill-thought-through withdrawal of Winter Fuel Payments with no practical regard to some pensioners’ low incomes – a move which was only reversed due to extreme political and societal pressure.
And, of course, then there’s Brexit. As we know Cameron only agreed to a Referendum to try to sort out dissent in his own party – what a reason! – and the whole Brexit campaign and subsequent Withdrawal Agreement arrangements could barely have been handled worse. The Referendum was only advisory, and no voting threshold was mandated regarding compliance with the result other than a straightforward majority, both unwise and unconstitutional. Brexit has already cost the UK billions in lost trade and reduced productivity according to the OBR, not to mention all the time wasted on the legislation, the inconvenience and the divisiveness it caused in society. Again, only Ed Davey of the main party leaders has had the guts to come out and say we need to address the Brexit debacle by rejoining the Customs Union. Meanwhile have Farage, Johnson, Gove & Co faced any consequences whatsoever for the economic disaster they foisted on us? No!
As a country the problem is that we can no longer afford these dreadful policy miscalculations. The coffers have dried up after the trillions of pounds wasted by governments over the last decades. So, what to do? It seems to me that all political leaders and Ministers should, at the very least, at the start of their term, be obliged to undergo high-intensity training on public decision-making, spending and accountability, delivered by leading business schools or universities. Politicians need to understand that they cannot simply waste public money as if it were confetti – and that they need to be solutions-focussed and financially accountable in their jobs – every day of the year and all year round – not just saying they are every five years at the ballot box.
* Judy Abel is a Lib Dem member who has worked in health policy for several major health charities. (She is still working)
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
13 seats change hands in council contests
How four bison brought new life to ancient woodland in Kent
Tom Bailey
Cassie
Iain Donaldson
Peter Hirst
38 Comments
HS2, ? The Lib Dems officially supported it, Jenny .
“Nick Clegg: Labour betraying the north over HS2 : Manchester Evening News
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk › news ›
15 Oct 2013 — Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told MPs that Labour’s equivocal support for HS2 was a betrayal of the north’s great cities”.
The right to buy their council home led to a better life for many people who otherwise might never have been able to become homeowners. The problem was the failure to provide new council housing to replace the stock that had been sold.
The main problem is the rise of full-time politicians who spend all their lives campaigning, but have little meaningful experience in the business or professional world. Consequently, few can think strategically or manage complex long-term projects. They know how to get elected, but not what to do when they get there… and I am afraid the Liberal Democrats are not immune from this particular disease.
If you need “high-intensity training” after you have been elected, you shouldn’t have stood in the first place. Get the experience and knowledge first, before getting your hands on other people’s money.
Incidentally, I think Jo Grimond was the first major political figure to suggest giving council tenants the ‘right to buy’. The problem was not right to buy – a liberal idea – but the broader failure to invest in public housing.
Thank you for your thoughts. I agree people coming into politics in later life when they have had snother career is much better – but that’s not happening and it’s hard to mandate for that.
@Charles Thorper
Of course letting some people buy a house at a third of the market rate was good for them – it was bad for the rest of the council house tenants who had to pay increased rent due to the remaining housing debt being spread over a smaller number of remaining tenants.
As we know Cameron only agreed to a Referendum to try to sort out dissent in his own party…
The Conservatives were haemorrhaging votes to UKIP so Cameron made the compelling offer of an in/out referendum, truthfully claiming that a Conservative vote was the only realistic chance of getting one. Many would be UKIP voters heeded his advice.
The Referendum was only advisory,…
That would have to have been agreed in advance and clearly stated. At the time, all parties stated that the result would be respected. It was therefore ‘de facto’ binding.
— Paddy Ashdown, speaking as votes were being counted for the referendum (and when remain were projected to win).
…no voting threshold was mandated regarding compliance with the result other than a straightforward majority, both unwise and unconstitutional.
There have been over forty referendums in and about the EEC/EC/EU in various states since the formation of the EEC. In every one the same voting system was used where the result was determined by a simple majority with no threshold as specified by the ‘European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission): Code of Good Practice on Referendums’:
https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2007)008rev-cor-e
Surely, those who advocate being subject to European rules would want to abide by them?
@David I certainly wasn’t suggesting HS2 was a bad idea, only that it has been unbelievably badly managed unlike, for example, the building of the TGV network in France. That mismanagement has had wider costs for society, including terrible environmental damage.
@Brenda – I agree – allowing some people to buy their council homes depleted the housing stock for future generations as no plan was ever envisaged to replace the lost social housing. Also many landlords with multiple properties have been able to rake in housing benefit from Councils, further depleting their resources i.e tenants are now paying higher rents to private landlords for the same properties Councils once received an income for (https://www.property118.com/right-to-buy-has-worsened-housing-crisis-claims-think-tank/)
@Jeff – you make no comment regarding my central theme re the EU Referendum – that there has been no accountability for the billions lost due to Brexit. Farage just sets up another party and stirs up more damaging discontent.
PS My married name is Ollendorff so the above comment is also from me!
@Jeff – Also addressing your straightforward majority point in referenda – which you made above – this is from the Review of the UK Constitution, Final report, by the Institute of Government (2023).
“In many other democracies, a higher threshold is required to pass legislation that
amends the constitution. Almost all countries in the Council of Europe require
a supermajority for the passage of constitutional amendments (except Denmark,
Iceland, Ireland, Israel and Malta, although these require other processes including
referendums).7 Most require a two-thirds majority, but some require three fifths
or three quarters. The purpose of this is to ensure that constitutional change has a high level of consensus, rather than being implemented by narrow majorities or based on one party” https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-06/review-uk-constitution-final-report.pdf
Sam Freedman’s book, ‘Failed State: why nothing works and how we fix it’ is really good on the structural weaknesses of parliamentary scrutiny on spending (and much else). Ed Davey wrote a paper years ago on how weak parliament was on budgets and finances; he talked about the problem again in his speech this July. But the Labour Government is very executive-oriented in pushing policy through; and the ‘Modernization Committee’ it set up in the Commons is achieving very little.
@Jeff – you make no comment regarding my central theme re the EU Referendum – that there has been no accountability for the billions lost due to Brexit.
Billions a year is a fair estimate. A detailed sector-by-sector analysis shows that, at most, Brexit might account for £6.1 billion of the shortfall in goods exports to the EU…
‘Brexit’s impact on UK exports’ [April 2025]:
https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/brexits-impact-on-uk-exports/
That loss is more than offset by savings in net EU membership contributions of around £14 billion a year (which would have risen to over £20 billion a year net in the next EU budget). The UK also now has several new trade deals with rapidly growing markets which offer far more potential for export growth than a largely stagnant EU: Germany has seen no growth since 2019 and nine EU members are now in Excessive Deficit Procedure facing austerity measures as per the UK 2008 to 2017.
Several factors have distorted UK export figures. On leaving the EU there were changes in the way some re-exports are counted: tropical fruits, clothing and footwear shipped via the UK to another EU member, like Ireland, counted as a UK export. Now they count as an export of the country of origin. Most of the fall in goods exports is due to declining North Sea oil production and the loss of energy intensive manufacturing, such as steel, fertiliser, cement and petrochemicals, rather than Brexit.
….and reduced productivity according to the OBR,…
That OBR forecast for 2035 is an average of 13 external forecasts from other organisations. It was widely disputed at the time and since. Many of their assumptions were overtaken by events, not least the ONS’s September 2023 revision putting GDP 1.8% higher. This recent analysis uses AI to collate data…
‘Grok Conversation’ [August 2025]:
https://x.com/i/grok/share/SA2QqABjBal5ihlgnXaOD7rZf
@William thank you for referring me to that Sam Freedman book – I think the Lib Dems pushing this accountability argument could be potentially fruitful – particularly regarding Brexit. People are tired of the policy failures.
@Jeff some of the new trade deals we have done with countries like Australia are disadvantageous to UK farmers as these countries have lower animal welfare standards so their meat, for example, is cheaper to produce. Also assessments of the economic impact of Brexit tend to differ according to who is producing them! The Constitution Society’s recent analysis of Brexit was pretty negative. https://consoc.org.uk/publications/the-economic-impact-of-brexit/
“I agree people coming into politics in later life when they have had snother career is much better – but that’s not happening and it’s hard to mandate for that.” >> I worked in the civil service for just over a decade and quite a few of the ministers I worked for had had previous careers. Here are some examples: Michael Gove had been a journalist, working his way up from the bottom, Boris Johnson had also been a journalist. Both Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak had had pretty stellar careers in the City, Nadhim Zahawi was a very successful entrepreneur, Therese Coffey worked for the Mars Corporation and BBC, Greg Clark also worked for the BBC, and Matt Hancock worked at the Bank of England. Whatever we may think of the decisions these people took in government, it just isn’t right to say that politicians have not had previous careers.
some of the new trade deals we have done with countries like Australia are disadvantageous to UK farmers as these countries have lower animal welfare standards so their meat, for example, is cheaper to produce.
All food entering the UK has to meet UK food standards. For example, the UK-Australia trade agreement requires imported beef to be produced on European Union Cattle Accreditation Scheme farms – the same standard as required by the EU under which we’ve been importing Australian beef for decades.
‘The European Union cattle accreditation scheme (EUCAS)’:
https://www.mla.eu/articles/supply-chain/the-eucas-scheme/
Have you seen any ‘cheap’ Australian meat in the shops? The only Australian food I’ve seen locally is a pile of Tim Tams on Tesco’s reduction shelf at £2.50 a pack. McVities won’t be troubled.
The Constitution Society’s recent analysis of Brexit was pretty negative.
“This publication presents the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society”. The author being John Springfield, a prominent remain / rejoin advocate. Springfield takes “the OBR’s 4 per cent loss of productivity to be the true figure” and applies it today. That’s completely wrong. Firstly, the OBR figure was a forecast for 2035 (15-years from 2020) – an accumulation of small annual reductions in the rate of growth of productivity. Secondly, we now know that many of the assumptions on which the 13 constituent forecasts were based were wrong: apart from the GDP revision already mentioned, many of the forecasts are predicated on immigration falling dramatically after leaving the EU, resulting in a smaller economy than had we remained; that hasn’t happened.
Despite the highest tax burden in 70 years, the highest electricity prices in the developed world, the steep decline of North Sea oil and gas production, etc., since leaving the EU, the UK has continued to outperform the eurozone. When Labour came in the UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7. That wouldn’t be possible if Brexit had had the “negative and large” impact that Springfield claims.
‘UK set to be the fastest growing major European economy, IMF forecasts in boost to Reeves’ [January 2025]:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-europe-rachel-reeves-imf-forecast-b2681450.html
@Tim – yes you are right of course that some MPs and Ministers have had previous successful careers – although I’m not quite sure that journalism qualifies as preparing people for the financial responsibilities of high office – but there has undoubtedly been a rise in the number of career politicians over the past few decades. https://queenspoliticalreview.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ni-gb-ireland-1-final-31-03-2014.pdf
@Jeff What I have read about this issue suggests UK farmers were worried about these new trade deals because of lower farming production costs in countries like Australia https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-57484099.amp , but you are right that this hasn’t led to massive imports so far https://www.politico.eu/article/british-australia-brexit-beef-lamb-trade-farmers-imports/
@Jeff – I defy anyone trying to say that a £38 billion loss in trade in goods with the EU since Brexit is a good thing – the value of goods exported to the EU in 2019 was £215bn but that fell to £177bn in 2024! That seriously affects people jobs and livelihoods. Souce: House of Commons Library (2025) https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf
“And, of course, then there’s Brexit.”
@ Judy,
You’re cherry picking the figures you like.
You quote from the Parliamentary report in your link:
” the value of goods exported to the EU in 2019 was £215bn but that fell to £177bn in 2024 ” That’s £38 bn as you say.
You don’t quote that:
” the value of goods exported to non-EU countries in 2019 was £209bn but that fell to £181 bn in 2024″. That’s £28 bn as you don’t say.
I’m not sure why this would be. The lingering effects of Covid perhaps? Whatever the reason, it can’t be due to Brexit. I dare say some hard line former Remainers would concoct some theory to support that view though!
You could also have mentioned:
” service exports to the EU increased from £145bn in 2019 to £172 bn in 2024″ That’s an increase of £27 bn, as again you don’t say.
The similar increase to the non-EU world was £57bn.
It looks like the shift in our exports from hard goods to services might be accelerating, but I wouldn’t like to say if Brexit was a major factor. No-one can come to any sensible conclusions just by highlighting two or three data points.
@Judy: You seem to be saying that it’s a bad thing that trade with the EU has (allegedly) fallen but you also appear to be implying it would be a bad thing if trade with Australia grew. That doesn’t seem very consistent! Surely trade is generally a good thing, no matter which country it’s with? (Unless of course there is some specific reason why some particular trade is unfair, harmful, or exploitative).
Also, when you say, ‘there has been no accountability for the billions lost due to Brexit‘: I don’t doubt that Brexit has caused a loss in GDP and therefore to public finances, but who do you want to be accountable? Remember Brexit was voted for by millions of people in a referendum – it wasn’t a choice made by politicians and forced on an unwilling majority population!
@ Simon @ Judy
” I don’t doubt that Brexit has caused a loss in GDP and therefore to public finances….”
The motto of the Royal Society, “Nullius in verba,” or “Take no one’s word for it” suggests that you should doubt everything until you’ve checked!
If you Google {GDP UK} You’ll see a GDP graph for the UK that also includes France. France is probably the EU country which is most like our own. The figures for GDP are:
2021 UK, $3.143 trn France $2.966 trn
2024 UK $3.644 trn France $3.162 trn
Take a look at the full graph before you decide. There really is no evidence we’ve had a reduced GDP because of Brexit. This is not to say that we couldn’t have done better had we pursued different economic policies, but we don’t have to rejoin the EU to do that.
Trade is generally a good thing but there are strategic considerations, especially with agriculture, This is why the EU has high tariffs on agricultural imports. The inconsistency we get from the Pro-EUlobby is the switch from saying we can’t have cheap imports from the rest of the world because this will adversely affect our farmers, but we still do need cheap imports from the EU.
The arguments about animal welfare are largely disingenuous. Judy might like to watch any of the videos on You Tube about the cruelty to ducks and geese in France, in the production of pate de foie gras.
Peter Martin
The raw GDP growth for the UK over the period 2021 – 2024 was artificially inflated by massive immigration. Over the same period France’s GDP per capita outstripped the UK. The average French person is now wealthier than the average Briton because of Brexit.
In any case cherry-picked stats comparing the UK to some EU country are an entirely bogus way to assess the impact of Brexit. If you start smoking you may be still be healthier than some particular non-smoker but that doesn’t mean smoking is good for you.
We can model the effects of Brexit by comparing the UK’s performance inside and outside the single market. All serious analysis demonstrates Brexit has had and will continue to have large, negative economic effects. Brexit apologists are essentially arguing that deliberately sabotaging your most important trading relationships has no consequences, a proposition so absurd it barely merits refutation.
@Andrew thank you for restoring some balance on the negative impact of Brexit. Clearly @Simon and @Peter don’t agree with the direction our own Lib Dem leadership are taking on this issue! https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/05/brexit-disaster-courage-eu-act-starmer
@ Andrew,
You make a fair point when you say we should look at GDP per capita. But, have you actually done that? I don’t see any figures or references. Yet you make the bold claim:
“The average French person is now wealthier than the average Briton because of Brexit.”
This simply is not true.
If we follow a similar procedure as before but this time we Google {GDP per capita UK}
We get:
2021 UK, $46.92k France $43.75k
2024 UK $52.64k France $46.15k
So it looks like the gap is widening rather that closing.
@ Judy,
Are you in favour of EU membership because you think we are better off in the EU, or are you claiming we are better off in the EU because you are in favour of EU membership?
I suspect it’s the latter.
@Judy: Yes I think that’s true that neither I nor Peter agree with everything the LibDem leadership has said on Brexit. I’m not sure why that’s relevant to the debate though … I prefer to form my opinions on the merits of the case, as I understand it, not because some other person has some opinion (even if the other person is Ed Davey 🙂 )
@Peter: On the subject of cherry-picking statistics, 2021 is a rather poor baseline to use for economic growth because Covid lockdowns were still happening through much of the year. You probably need to go back to at least 2019 for a fair comparison.
“And, of course, then there’s Brexit.”
Leaving aside David Cameron’s reasons for falling a referendum and for the record I disagree with Judy on this, the evidence is that a significant number of voters, perhaps a majority were not happy with our terms of membership of the EU or disagreed with the principles of the EU.
The response of the political class Brexit this is a classic example of a poor and costly policy decision of recent years. It should have been obvious for years that many people in the UK did not agree with the way the EU was developing. Yet no attempt was made to compromise over those concerns. Instead anyone who did not agree was denounced as a racist. The political class was unable or unwilling to accept that some people did not think the same way as they did.
The proper course of action would have been to offer genuine concessions. For example. The rules on freedom of movement could have been modified to allow countries to exclude those convicted of a crime carrying, in the accepting country a punishment of, say, more than 2 years in prison from FOM. Also the Common Fisheries Policy could have been modified to increase the UK’s share of fish in UK waters significantly, over a period of time.
But nothing was done so we are were we are.
@Peter Martin
If you look for GDP adjusted by purchasing power parity – which cancels out the effect of exchange rate fluctuations- you will discover that France is now ahead of the UK.
Increased trade barriers don’t just reduce our exports, they make our imports more expensive. This shows up in the reduced purchasing power of the pound.
@PeterDavies. Our imports will only be more expensive if WE levy tariffs or Trump levies export tariffs (which he hasn’t). So far, I think, Starmer hasn’t had the balls to levy retaliatory tariffs on US imports.
@ Simon R,
Yes I agree that we shouldn’t make too much of the difference between any two data points. I did make the point (my comment of 31st Aug ’25 – 12:09pm) that we should look at the graph itself before deciding. If we are to get really serious we’d need to to a proper statistical analysis and apply some smoothing and averaging.
@ Brenda Will,
“……you will discover that France is now ahead of the UK.”
Where will I discover that? If you’ve ever had to write a technical report, as a student exercise, you might have noticed that you’d lose marks for this kind of comment. What’s needed are references.
Once again you are attempting to cherry pick the figures you like.
GDP figures in whatever form are only part of the picture. We have to compare levels of unemployment too. The unemployment rate in France was unchanged at 7.5% in Q2 2025, according to the French national statistics agency, INSEE.
I’ll ask you the same question as I asked Judy:
Are you in favour of EU membership because you think we are better off in the EU, or are you claiming we are better off in the EU because you are in favour of EU membership?
@ Mick Taylor “Starmer hasn’t had the balls to levy retaliatory tariffs on US imports”. Why would he do that ?
As a long standing Liberal I would expect you to support the present position.
It’s not only tarriffs that push up prices, it’s paperwork and delays. If fresh food takes a day longer to cross the border, importers have to pay for faster modes of transport or more spoilage.
Starmer hasn’t … lev{ied} retaliatory tariffs on US imports.
As that would make the UK worse off, it would be a poor idea. The citizens and businesses of the tariffing country pay for them. Yes, US tariffs on our goods & services are irritating, but damage the US more than us.
……but {US tariffs} damage the US more than us.
The damage is approximately the same.
Trump mistakenly believes that an imbalance in US trade can be rectified by the application of tariffs.
The reason for any country sending goods and services, which have a real cost to produce, to the USA is, or should be, to be able to import US products in return. There’s no point just exporting for the sake of it. So if the US applies tariffs it will reduce its own imports but at the same time it will reduce the ability of others to afford its exports.
So it won’t work unless tariffs are so high that there is no trade in either direction.
It’s a lose-lose situation.
So what can the USA do to balance their trade? The UK too because we have the same problem.
1) We could restrict what those who accumulate large quantities of dollars and pounds can spend them on. In the UK much of our infrastructure has been bought up by the governments or others in the surplus countries
2) We should tackle the problem of currency manipulation. It’s easy to hold down the value of a currency by selling it at a cheap price. There are other ways such as setting up so-called Sovereign Wealth Funds to export capital for the purpose of buying up foreign assets. All countries running large current account surpluses manipulate their currencies downwards in one way or another.